Threat to property

Education only addresses the intellect. The real problem lies in the will. How many self-righteous arrogant prigs do you know who also happen to have MA or higher? They are legion. It's a terrible indictment of the parlous state of tertiary education. And don't even get me started on secondary education.

When Caesar sets the curriculum, his whole effort is to breed conformance. It's working.
 
Arthur said:
Education only addresses the intellect. The real problem lies in the will. How many self-righteous arrogant prigs do you know who also happen to have MA or higher? They are legion. It's a terrible indictment of the parlous state of tertiary education. And don't even get me started on secondary education.

When Caesar sets the curriculum, his whole effort is to breed conformance. It's working.
Click to expand...

No offence, this comes across as unhinged.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Not entirely true:
The ANC started as the South African Native Congress
Click to expand...

Entirely true. I was talking about what the N in ANC stands for not what one the N`s in South African Native National Congress (SANNC) stands for. I was specific about this.

What you just did was like if I said the P in DP stands for Party and you come along and go, "thats not entirely true, the P in PP stands for progressive"

The DA didn't ever "push for multicultural elections" -
Click to expand...
Yeah they did as the PP. What I mean is everyone gets a vote, not just blacks and not just whites. They had members of all colors until they were told they were not allowed to. Well at least this is what PP members are directly telling me. Should I tell people who were actually there and activists of the PP that random forum dude says they were wrong?
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
No offence taken, only surprised you don't get it.

Ever noticed that not all clever people are good people? That education itself doesn't make people "intelligent", only knowledgeable? Ever wondered why?
Click to expand...

Fixed it for u. Very well said.
 
Arthur said:
No offence taken, only surprised you don't get it.

Ever noticed that not all clever people are good people? That education itself doesn't make people good, only knowledgeable? Ever wondered why?
Click to expand...

No one is saying educated people are good people. Education however is the road out of poverty. Sure I understand how someone who studied philosophy could find academics a waste of time, but the world needs more academics, not less.

Mila said:
sarcasm?


:eek:
Click to expand...

No, Im not sure he knows how to tell the difference between a personal attack and saying something negative about someones opinion. No matter, thats what the mods are there for. There is a difference to saying something sounds crazy and telling someone they are crazy. I have said many crazy things myself as well :)
 
Techne said:
I think the state has its purpose and getting rid of it is untenable. It should just be more limited.
Click to expand...
I agree, Techne. I am not an Anarchist (note to ghoti: this is a technical terms meaning someone who believes in no government).

I very much support a powerful State. I'll go even further: the State should be invincible. But here's the all-important rider: the role of the State should be restricted to providing protection for citizens from force or fraud by fellow-citizens, and defence against predations from non-citizens.

Now protection for citizens includes the protection and vindication of their property rights and the protection of their freedom to enter into commercial bargains with others without force of fraud.

The basic social rule is that no-one may initiate the use of force against another, and the right to the retaliatory use of force in normal circumstances is ceded to that entity we call the State. In other words, the State is that agency required by society in order to protect, preserve and extend the property rights of citizens, without favour or favourites.

The State is unlike any other organisation in society, for one all-important reason: the State alone has the legal right to use force in its dealings with human beings (in shorthand, it has what political theorists call the Power of the Sword). Now because the State is vested with such awesome power (a monopoly on the legal use of force), it is essential that it not also be a player in the economic relations between citizens, for history shows over and over and over and over again that combining the Power of the Sword with economic power is a recipe for totalitarianism and the subjugation, disempowerment and expropriation of citizens.

Once the State becomes a player in the economy, it cannot remain impartial when economic disputes arise between citizens. Not only that, the State machinery instantly attracts people who want to use the State's legal force power to interfere in the free commercial relations between people, and soon natural rights are mitigated or abolished. It also gets the support of rapacious and greedy persons who wish to use their relationships with the State to gain economic favours (ie laws that favour their businesses) legally enacted. It is only with the collusion of the State that any greedy businessman can unjustly exploit or price-gouge (and this is rife on our society).

I'm with Lord Acton: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now the quintessential power in society is State power (ie power of force). The essential feature of State power is compulsion.

In a free society, one cannot speak of economic power in the same terms as State power. The only way economic power can become threatening or bad for society is when it is combined with political or State power, in other words where it can compel or prevent certain economic relations by the use of force. When the State legally establishes a monopoly or cartel as say in telecommunications (or healthcare, or education, or broadcasting, or energy, say), then citizens who wish to buy those goods/services have only one choice: either buy from the monopoly/cartel, or don't buy at all. Free commercial bargains are impossible - they are prevented by law (and thus by force) from starting their own enterprises or seeking alternatives. One can cite hundreds of examples here and around the world. This in my view is immoral and unjust.

So, I am not opposed to the State. On the contrary, the State is required. But it is required for one specific, fundamental and indispensable reason only: the protection of the rights and property of each and every citizen without favour or distinction. The role of the State is to ensure justice.

Not economic equality.
Not education.
Not healthcare.
Not employment.
Not housing.
Not financial support in an emergency.
Not social services.
Not roads.
Not telecommunications.
Not postal deliveries.
Not broadcasting services.
Not medicines.
Not central banks.
Not money.
Not care for the aged.
Not care for the handicapped.
Not water.
Not electricity.
Not spectrum allocations.
Not internet.
Etcetera.

These all have nothing to do with why we have a State in the first place.

One thing alone is the raison d'être for the State: the protection of your and my and everyone's rights and liberties. And to do so, the State needs to be strong enough to act against users of force or fraud even when they have many guns.

In short, the State exists for one primary and overarching reason: to ensure that each and every citizen is free to move, contract, transact and interact with others according to their lights, without force, fraud or favour.

The State can only legitimately act when a citizen's rights are violated by another. And in a free society, the only way of violating another's rights are through force or fraud (ie to lie in order to unjustly obtain economic gain).

So when I call for the removal of the State, I really mean from the economic sphere. We must recover the authentic State, and ensure it does the one thing it is meant to do.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Not economic equality.
Not education.
Not healthcare.
Not employment.
Not housing.
Not financial support in an emergency.
Not social services.
Not roads.
Not telecommunications.
Not postal deliveries.
Not broadcasting services.
Not medicines.
Not central banks.
Not money.
Not care for the aged.
Not care for the handicapped.
Not water.
Not electricity.
Not spectrum allocations.
Not internet.
Etcetera.
.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Somalia. A country with no government. In case Arthur reads this: Somalia is a country in North East Africa.
 
ghoti said:
Sounds like Somalia. A country with no government. In case Arthur reads this: Somalia is a country in North East Africa.
Click to expand...
Oh, ghoti, precious thing. Again you ignore the very essence of what I repeatedly say. Can't find anything substantial to say, only snide retorts? Do you not see that one of the many problems with Somalia is that it has no functioning State that can protect and vindicate the rights - including property rights - of citizens? After all the above, do you not gasp even this basic point?

And just to reassure you: I've been there. Have you? Care to share your special insights and expert knowledge?

Somalia is dysfunctional in so many other ways, too. But not because they don't have State housing or healthcare.

As an aside: for those who think we need a central State to avoid chaos in telecommunications, wanna know which country in Africa has the cheapest, fastest and most reliable telecoms infrastructure? Ten years ago they were already way ahead of us in SA, not just in my view, but in the BBC's (that propaganda arm of the crypto-socialists that have ruined Britain)? Now if they could a real liberty-guaranteeing State ...
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Oh, ghoti, precious thing. Again you ignore the very essence of what I repeatedly say. Can't find anything substantial to say, only snide retorts?
Click to expand...

Are you not a little like the pot calling the kettle black? Let me quote you in your previous comment that I replied to:

"I am not an Anarchist (note to ghoti: this is a technical terms meaning someone who believes in no government)."

You say something incredibly patronizing then play the matyr and act all offended when someone responds in kind? I dont get it.
 
@ghoti: I meant to add that you confuse government and the State. They are very distinct things, not synonyms. See the distinction is a sine qua non for political literacy.
 
No personal attacks please. Just argue the topic - not the man :)
 
ghoti said:
/sigh You didnt even know what you were fighting....
Click to expand...
/compliment on

What brilliant insight! What astonishing prescience! What a thorough grasp of the topic!

So glad my confusion was cleared up, after all these years. Detention without trail was soo avoidable if only I'd known. Thanks, ghoti!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X